Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Just trying something:

sexual intercourse

sex

edit: Hahaha, we can use sexual intercourse!

I agree with Shafique that there must be an end to a discussion some time. But at the beginning of the discussion about nikah I emailed my Arabic teacher in Holland about this (he has a phd in classical Arabic). And i donot want his efforts to be in vain. The following description in Lane caught his attention: inivit feminam. Which according to him translates to in Dutch "hij neukte een vrouw". This translates to English "he f***ed a woman".

FD - for me the issue was not whether Nikah meant legal sexual intercourse or not, but whether it was a profane word.

From the above, I'm not sure whether inivit feminam is the latin meaning that was translated into Dutch as 'he f..d the woman' or not, but if it is isn't 'f..d' being used to mean sexual intercourse (as the literal meaning of 'f..d').

f..d does mean sexual intercourse, but the former is profane (a swear word and coarse) whilst the other is descriptive.

I'm not an Arabic scholar, but given that all Muslims call the marriage ceremony 'Nikah' and the dictionary definition of the root word is 'marriage, including legal sexual intercourse' - I think the feedback from Arabic speakers that Nikah is not profane holds water (for me at least).

Ultimately, the question I think is: is 'Nikah' considered profane in classical 7th Century Arabic? It appears to me the answer is 'no', but it would be interesting to hear what your teacher says.

Cheers,
Shafique

His answer is dissapointing (as it doesn´t solve the issue): opinons differ and sometimes contrary to each other...

I think we've flogged this particular dead horse enough

At least now I know how to swear in Arabic!

Cheers,
Shafique

I agree, let it rest...Me personally, although not a scolar, give the Quran the benefit of the doubt.
It did raise another question in my mind though, how come naqa en neuken are so close...coincidence or two languages influencing each other with bad words...but that´s not for here...

shafique wrote:Why should a Jew believe your interpretations and reject the OT when it says Elijah needs to descend bodily from heaven and the Messiah needs tw decades later the Romans ransack Jerusalem).

woah! The banishment of wars - surely you do know that it's referring to the Second Advent. Don't Muslims believe in it? My understanding is that they do...correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm correct, are you contradicting what the Quran tells you about Jesus' Second Advent? Preachers that preach what they themselves can't seem to do, and who are into wars of conquest are a much better preachers than those that advocate peace, oh I'm sure.

shafique wrote:Is not choice? You choose to believe a later scripture that supersedes the previous one. So do I.

supersede is not the correct word. The OT is important to the NT that's undeniable - the NT wouldn't exist without the OT. What's funny is to see how you cling to (some) Jewish rejection of Jesus as their Messiah but do not cling on Judaism's disqualification of Mohammad. If a Jew couldn't be their prophet, do you think a Muslim could be? They don't even look in that direction, period. One can't argue Christianity's Jewishness but when Islam tries to get in the picture and meddle with books that were not written by them and had long since been established, well...it seems very odd.

freza wrote:Because the events were corrupted. Lot did not sleep with his daughters according to the Quran. You can choose to believe that a Prophet of God got drunk and slept with his daughters, I choose to believe the Quran's account. For me, this is logical. You have a different set of values.

Lot, Lot, Lot. You are Lot fixated. Lot wasn't a prophet. The very BASIC requirement for prophethood is to be a vessel of God. Lot dealt with some angels, whoop dee doo. He wasn't a vessel of God, period. There are true prophets and important ones in the OT why bring up one that wasn't even a prophet? But this I say - I'm also on the fence about the whole Lot thing! (yes Shafique, some Christians do question things in the Bible, shocking to someone like you who criticizes people for questioning but also criticizes them for not questioning.)

shafique wrote:I see you as acting just like Jews who reject Jesus by using the Bible and insisting that they know more about the Biblical prophecies than Christians do. I'm sure Jews think they are right.

first of all, some Jews DID accept Jesus as their Messiah, do you forget this? apparently. the ones that didn't - well, if they think they are right, yay for them. some people say whenever they get a chance that "there is no compulsion in religion" while slyly criticizing everything under the moon about a particular religion *cough* cough* But anyway, I'm sure you do know that some old Jewish writings state things that seem very similar to Christian ones re: Messianic qualities. Including that "Israel will reject the prophet"

shafique wrote:Are you serious? Of course I have questioned - I laid it out in a separate thread inviting people to show contradictions and I dealt with all of them to my own satisfaction (if not yours).

whaat? you obviously didn't understand my original question. Have you ever questioned your belief system in a profound and sincere way? If so, what exactly have you questioned? And please don't point to a thread that you have started in order to challenge others Not yourself. your replies on that thread are predictably patronizing and quite vague when its convenient (contradictions, Mohammad's character). What I meant by this question is real personal doubts that you haven't yet aired on this forum.

shafique wrote:There is no difference between Hadith and the Bible. Both contain some words of God, both contain corruptions. Both are historical documents, both have had 'accepted' hadith compiled into books and both have had reports rejected. Both were written/compiled after the events in question and by people who weren't there directly. I can't see how they are different.

Well for the unanimity that you preach about the Quran's teachings you can't even seem to agree with other Muslims and with Islamic scholars (no less) on which Hadiths are genuine and which ones are not. The ones that are inconvenient and unflattering of Mohammad seem to be the ones you pick as being false, even if Islamic scholars state that they're real. However, the Quran has Biblical influences, has references to Jesus and Biblical characters and according to your "logic" the Bible, that book which you just dismissed, shows proof that Mohammad was going to be the last "prophet". aaaaaahhhhhh, logic!

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Why should a Jew believe your interpretations and reject the OT when it says Elijah needs to descend bodily from heaven and the Messiah needs tw decades later the Romans ransack Jerusalem).

woah! The banishment of wars - surely you do know that it's referring to the Second Advent. Don't Muslims believe in it? My understanding is that they do...correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm correct, are you contradicting what the Quran tells you about Jesus' Second Advent? Preachers that preach what they themselves can't seem to do, and who are into wars of conquest are a much better preachers than those that advocate peace, oh I'm sure.

No, I'm not talking about why Christians and Muslims believe Jesus to be the true Messiah, but why Jews reject Jesus for not fulfilling prophecies literally.

The OT does not say that the Messiah will only bring peace only with the second coming.

So, I repeat - Jews use the Bible to reject a true messenger. Christians use the Bible to reject a true messenger. No difference, from my view.

Some Jews did accept Jesus, many Christians accepted Muhammad - but those that reject Jesus and Muhammad use the Bible to justify their
rejection. I can't see how these can be considered contentious statements - these are just facts. I have shown the Biblical objections to Jesus in another thread (arguments that Jews make, but that you and I reject - the fact we reject them, does not change the fact that Jews believe those arguments).

You believe Lot was not a prophet, the Quran says he was. You believe David was a prophet who committed adultery according to the Bible, we believe he was a sinless prophet. As I said, the Quran corrects errors that crept into the Bible.

And yes, when I say I question religion I do mean I question the core beliefs and values. That there are differing interpretations of Islamic teachings does not change the fact there is one Quran. There are many sects of Christianity who have differing interpretations of the same Biblical verses - and there are sects of Christianity who have different books of the Bible. Does not change the fact for me that Jesus was a true prophet and Muhammad is a true a prophet.

So, you agree with me that Jews are misusing/misunderstanding the Bible when they use it to reject Jesus, but disagree with me that Christians are misuing/misunderstanding the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh.


Cheers,
Shafique

freza, concerning Lot - the Bible says he offered his daughters to strange men and slept with his daughters them after they got him drunk, then in the NT ( 2 Peter 2:7) he is called a righteous man by Peter, and the OT tells us that he was saved by God.

As Muslims, we believe the bits about Lot acting sinfully were corrected by the Quran - so the Quran does not copy, but corrects the account according to Muslims.

Similary, your last paragraph says I dismiss the Bible when I clearly said I give it the same respect I give the Hadith - accept the true accounts of the sayings of Jesus or Muhammad, pbuh, and reject/re-interpret the false accounts. Bible contains salacious passages, so do Hadith. Some hadith have been fabricated ...

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:You believe Lot was not a prophet, the Quran says he was.

it's not what I personally believe, it's that he didn't meet the basic criteria. How was he a messenger of God? What message did he bring man? not a prophet. focus on something more substantial. Mohammad is known to have acquired an imperfect knowledge of the Bible. He didn't formally study it, he got info in bits and pieces through Christians that he met. Hence the mistakes in the Quran. The man had an informal knowledge of the Bible yet his adherents say that he "corrected" parts of it? how can you correct something that you don't even fully understand? oh please.

shafique wrote:So, you agree with me that Jews are misusing/misunderstanding the Bible when they use it to reject Jesus, but disagree with me that Christians are misuing/misunderstanding the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh.

do you know the amount of debate there is in Judaism today? Judaism is one fractured religion. I wonder why you don't fixate on Jews and their different groups and interpretations of their holy books.

You insist that Christianity is fragmented yet you don't see that the most important element that binds Christians of any group together is their Messiah - Jesus.

Jews don't even have a Messiah!

Christians aren't misusing the Bible to reject Mohammad, Mohammad is not even someone to consider a prophet when Christians already have one. Why would most Christians reject their prophet for a flawed and false one? Makes no sense. You would be better off trying to "save" Jews than Christians. You know a group who actually needs a prophet. But Jews want a Jewish prophet, yeah that's a dilemma....

Thanks freza - I actually agree that your point of view is a valid one. I happen to have a different point of view.

I think our respective opinions don't change the basic fact that the Bible can be used to reject true messengers of God - Jews do this for Jesus, and (from a Muslim perspective) Christians do this for Muhammad, pbuh.

Whether Jews and Christians are right to use the Bible this way is a matter of opinion.

I accept you think you are right, just as I accept the Rabbinical scholars think they are right.

Cheers,
Shafique

in conclusion, why I don't think Mohammad was a true prophet:

His personal character. He might have been fond of prayer and have decreed some good deeds onto others but I think that the excessive praying bit were him wrestling with his personal demons (figuratively) and his good deeds were mostly part of his propaganda campaign - like a politician trying to win over votes of his constituents. What's obvious is that he helped some but also shattered others.

I think that Mohammad was very good at some things: his opportunism, and manipulations. I think his ideologies succeeded during his lifetime because of these traits (as I think his ideology successfully spread for a number of other reasons afterwards).

The are references of Islamic scholar and of historical ones that point to Mohammad mental disease - that he suffered from fits and seizures. The voices in his head could very well been just that.

He was fascinated with stories early on and was apparently very impressionable by other cultures and he learned about these cultures and religions in an informal setting. There is also a general consensus that Mohammad had an imperfect knowledge of the Torah and the Bible. It explains the influences of such in the Quran but also the many mistakes. a true prophet would not be ignorant of information that would be left in a book and that he and his adherents would claim is "perfection" and God's own words.

Prophets had a much deeper spiritual awakening. Mohammad seems to have gotten even more erratic and selfish as his so-called communications with the angel Gabriel progressed. The OT prophets follow a pattern - the prophets led moral lives and those who didn't ran the risk of being stripped of their prophethood or being punished by God. God would never have advised them to commit sin. Apparently God never punished Mohammad but if he did, it wasn't recorded. But we're to believe that God actually advised Mohammad to commit sin and he even justified it for him.

Mohammad doesn't bring a unique and revolutionary doctrine into the world, he brings a religion that focuses on God, but how is that different from the other monotheistic religions? He focused on rituals and the mundane in daily lives but not on an impressive and different ideology. To pray in a different physical manner does not warrant an entire religion. Re: Humanity, he took steps backward. Women are to be respected yes, but they're less than men and men can rule over them. War captives are OK as are slaves. Wars of conquest are justified in every sense as long as it's Islam on the offensive. He blurred politics into religion. Questioning is not good....so many things that one would not expect of an ultimate prophet.

thanks freza - we can agree to disagree.

All true prophets had their opponents, and all prophets bringing a new message had opponents who used their scriptures to denounce them.

This fact was going to be one of my Biblical criteria for a true prophet. However, we have not really had occasion to examine what the Bible says - as we have been side-tracked on other subjects.

For me, your objections to Muhammad, pbuh, are valid - but for me fall short of a Biblical criteria. For me, all the objections I could argue against and certainly do not agree with the objections - but that is my view. I would also point out that the objections are similar to those that were proferred by the opponents of Biblical prophets.

Some people will see that Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria in the Bible and will see the prophecies fulfilled in Islam as a sign of his truth. Others will not.

Therefore, your well written objections are for me a sign of the truth of Muhammad, pbuh, claims. All of them can be examined by people and I have found that many who do look at the objections end up with a more favourable view of Muhammad, pbuh, than they had to begin with.

I am pragmatic as well, Jews have continued to reject Jesus for 2000 years and are 100% that their Biblical scholars are right, so I am therefore not surprised to read your views.

What is important though, is for all parties to listen and acknowledge the right of others the freedom to believe in what they want.

Cheers,
Shafique